You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

-If he stinks up the room, he's gone. It's not like he was expected to start.
-If he beats out Thad, he's a great #3 QB.
-If he shocks the world and beats out everyone, who knew?

No way we can lose, really.

This is how most folks look at signing a #3 QB.

Browns fans? Well....

Most teams rarely see their 3rd strong QB on the field. The Browns...

And most teams fans don't clamor for the backup to play as much as our fan base either

Im not sure that's true. Any bad team without a QB thinks the backup is better. Just look at New York

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise._________________First Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee.

-If he stinks up the room, he's gone. It's not like he was expected to start.
-If he beats out Thad, he's a great #3 QB.
-If he shocks the world and beats out everyone, who knew?

No way we can lose, really.

This is how most folks look at signing a #3 QB.

Browns fans? Well....

Most teams rarely see their 3rd strong QB on the field. The Browns...

And most teams fans don't clamor for the backup to play as much as our fan base either

Im not sure that's true. Any bad team without a QB thinks the backup is better. Just look at New York

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

Lol, Yep. Hoyer on the Roster? Only news because it's shaking up the bottom of the depth chart. Thad Lewis had to start last year? If he's better than Lewis, suit him up. May the best 3rd string QB, never have to start._________________"You mean...this ain't Malcolm Browns car...? ...Damn...my bad..."

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises _________________

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises

He apparently hates him so much that he decided not to bring in his replacement. He didn't like him as a prospect and/or didn't like the selection for the Browns on draft day. Fair enough. Neither did most on this site. That said, people can change their opinions over time.

Mike Lombari's history here was 20 years ago. I'd like to think people can become better at their job after 20 years. Also, as far as his time with the Raiders, he's not even remotely responsible for any of that, neither was anyone else who had to work for Al Davis, the guy was a crazy old man who had an unhealthy obsession with ht/wt/speed players. Like Jerry Jones, Davis did as he damned well pleased with HIS team._________________First Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee.

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises

When you say 'most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB', are you aware that you're making that up?_________________

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises

When you say 'most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB', are you aware that you're making that up?

Most team's GM's havent' openly called their starting QB a "panicked disaster"

But to be fair to Lombardi, hating on Cleveland is kind of the job requirement for most talking heads._________________

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises

When you say 'most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB', are you aware that you're making that up?

Most team's GM's havent' openly called their starting QB a "panicked disaster"

But to be fair to Lombardi, hating on Cleveland is kind of the job requirement for most talking heads.

He was referencing the pick, most notably the use of 22nd overall pick on a 28 year old QB, not his evaluation of the player.

Again, most folks on this site, many of whom are respected posters, were saying the EXACT same thing.

Time and perspective can change opinions rather easily._________________First Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee.

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises

When you say 'most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB', are you aware that you're making that up?

Most team's GM's havent' openly called their starting QB a "panicked disaster"

But to be fair to Lombardi, hating on Cleveland is kind of the job requirement for most talking heads.

He called Weeden a 'panicked disaster'? I thought he called the Browns' pick of Weeden at #22 in the first round a 'panicked disaster'--since that's what happened. It seems the issue was criticizing where he was picked (something most did), and not criticizing Weeden. At that time, there were many that believed we could have gotten Weeden in the 2nd round.

And you know what he didn't do? He didn't 'openly share his dislike' for Weeden since he's worked for the Browns. In fact, he's been in a position to provide support for him--and it seems there has been support provided for him.

Grossi just refuses to write that story, since it contradicts the picture he's been painting._________________

Probably, but not every team's fans seem to think that the GM signed a 3rd stringer to come in and start because he hates the current starter and is simply biding his time before completely ruining the franchise.

I'm pretty sure that's because most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB or possess a proven track record of completely ruining franchises

When you say 'most team's GMs haven't openly shared their dislike for their starting QB', are you aware that you're making that up?

Most team's GM's havent' openly called their starting QB a "panicked disaster"

But to be fair to Lombardi, hating on Cleveland is kind of the job requirement for most talking heads.

He called Weeden a 'panicked disaster'? I thought he called the Browns' pick of Weeden at #22 in the first round a 'panicked disaster'--since that's what happened. It seems the issue was criticizing where he was picked (something most did), and not criticizing Weeden. At that time, there were many that believed we could have gotten Weeden in the 2nd round.

And you know what he didn't do? He didn't 'openly share his dislike' for Weeden since he's worked for the Browns. In fact, he's been in a position to provide support for him--and it seems there has been support provided for him.

Grossi just refuses to write that story, since it contradicts the picture he's been painting.

He called Weeden a 'panicked disaster'? I thought he called the Browns' pick of Weeden at #22 in the first round a 'panicked disaster'--since that's what happened. It seems the issue was criticizing where he was picked (something most did), and not criticizing Weeden. At that time, there were many that believed we could have gotten Weeden in the 2nd round.

If Lombardi wanted to portray Weeden as a potential franchise QB, he would have defended the pick by saying we got our guy and didn't risk losing him. If Weeden is a franchise QB, then its not a "Disaster" of any kind. Disaster implies that the selection was a bad one. If you overdraft a pro-bowler, was it a disaster regardless of the situation?

He wanted to portray the selection of Weeden as a bad pick so he called it a disaster. But that was his job as an analyst, to make people tune in and notice and one way to do that is kick the dog when he's already down (like ESPN and SI like to do as well because as Colin Cowherd so rightly points out, Ohio fans will tune in even more when you badmouth us)._________________

He called Weeden a 'panicked disaster'? I thought he called the Browns' pick of Weeden at #22 in the first round a 'panicked disaster'--since that's what happened. It seems the issue was criticizing where he was picked (something most did), and not criticizing Weeden. At that time, there were many that believed we could have gotten Weeden in the 2nd round.

If Lombardi wanted to portray Weeden as a potential franchise QB, he would have defended the pick by saying we got our guy and didn't risk losing him. If Weeden is a franchise QB, then its not a "Disaster" of any kind. Disaster implies that the selection was a bad one. If you overdraft a pro-bowler, was it a disaster regardless of the situation?

He wanted to portray the selection of Weeden as a bad pick so he called it a disaster. But that was his job as an analyst, to make people tune in and notice and one way to do that is kick the dog when he's already down (like ESPN and SI like to do as well because as Colin Cowherd so rightly points out, Ohio fans will tune in even more when you badmouth us).

He wanted to portray the Browns' front office of Holmgren and Heckert as panicking and reaching to fill a need. There aren't any Lombardi criticisms of Weeden that I am aware of.